Re: glibc qsort() vulnerability

On Fri, Feb 09, 2024 at 08:40:47PM +0100, Mats Kindahl wrote:
> On Fri, Feb 9, 2024 at 5:27 PM Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote:
>> We do pretty much assume that "int" is "int32".  But I agree that
>> assuming anything about the width of size_t is bad.  I think we need
>> a separate pg_cmp_size() or pg_cmp_size_t().
> 
> Do we want to have something similar for "int" as well? It seems to be
> quite common and even though it usually is an int32, it does not have to be.

I don't think we need separate functions for int and int32.  As Tom noted,
we assume they are the same.

-- 
Nathan Bossart
Amazon Web Services: https://aws.amazon.com